Magicr: I should have made it clear that it was a email that I re-posted.
But that said it doesn't change the words. It's funny how most people that disagree try and find fault in either spelling or some sort of mis quote. Why not attack the message and its meaning rather then mis direction?

"Adam — 5-feet-10 and thin, with blue eyes, according to his driver's license — had become a vegan and insisted on eating organic food. Family friends said he was politically conservative, although he was the one member of his immediate family not registered to vote."

Rob posted this pic in another thread it also works here as well
Wake how is your "fact finding" comming along? Do you search Snopes for all your facts? Your going to have to do better than that my friend

Are there any people in the world more intolerant than Liberals?? They bang on about Christians but they are just fanatics on the flip side.Rabidly fanatical in their beliefs with sneering contempt for anybody elses.Their way or the Highway

You're a riot Chris. Grant posts a totally bogus bunch of lies and you come in here defending Christians, which weren't even central to the conversation. Feeling a bit butt hurt because not everyone believes in the magic man in the sky? OTOH defending God in the context of defending lies does seem appropriate.

You know there are a lot of Christian Democrats. You wouldn't recognize them because they are attuned to the values espoused by Jesus more so then than the so called Christians who are only concerned about getting a free pass on sins.

Rob posted this pic in another thread it also works here as well
Wake how is your "fact finding" comming along? Do you search Snopes for all your facts? Your going to have to do better than that my friend

I don't think any of my fact finding lead me to Snopes. And why exactly am I "going to have to do better"? You posted something that is almost 98% false. Never knew it was pro-Christian to blatantly post lies and defend them as if they were the truth and then attempt to demonize the person who exposed your lies (okay, maybe not yours directly). And still no admission from you that you posted a huge heap of intellectual dung. You and Chris must subscribe to an alternative brand of Christianity. One where lying and slandering is okay, provided you are doing it in the name of the Lord. Let me guess, it's the eleventh commandment.

As far as Rob's pic is concerned, how do you feel about the converse of that post (to dumb it down for you enough to understand, switch the two places of the pics)? You are sympathetic of the gun-owners being mislabeled, but what about Muslims? Or I bet you are just a hypocrite.

^You're obviously not a fan of any religion. Not sure any of them that tolerate lying. Maybe the televangelists that con people out of their money? I'm sure you would be a perfect fit. You could concoct posts such as these, but get them to donate some money to your phony cause.

I'm sorry but I have to correct John when he says things that are just not biblical but pretends to know scripture. Proverbs 6:-11 Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! 7 It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, 8 yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest. 9 How long will you lie there, you sluggard? When will you get up from your sleep? 10 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest-- 11 and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man.

2nd Thessalonians 10-13 Don’t you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” And now we’re getting reports that a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings are taking advantage of you. This must not be tolerated. We command them to get to work immediately—no excuses, no arguments—and earn their own keep. Friends, don’t slack off in doing your duty.

Jesus said the poor you will have with you always. I know many churches who have out reaches for the poor in their communities. So Christians are not against the poor. What we are against are people who will not or refuse to work for their money, food etc... we aren't about just giving hand outs if you are fully capable of a days wage. I know a few people that I recently found out that they are getting 400 per month and another 600 per month in food stamps. i asked them how that was possible since i know them to live in decent houses and drive decent cars and carry cell phones in their pockets. They laughed and both said the same thing. It's so easy.
I hate to say it but liberalism will ultimately be this countries demise.

Sorry Flight, I've been working for nearly 40 years and never needed scripture to understand the importance of work. Somehow you seem to have the idea that being liberal means you want to give money to those who are lazy. News Flash! Not true. Since I know that it would be impossible for you to understand this I see no reason to expound upon it further.

Somehow you seem to have the idea that being liberal means you want to give money to those who are lazy.

We know THAT! It means you want to give OTHER PEOPLES money to those who are lazy. It means you like to take services provided by OTHER PEOPLE and turn them into Gaia given rights. It means you want to remove accountability and responsibility from OTHER PEOPLE so they cannot defend their family as they see fit. Liberalism has been well defined for some time now.

Well then Jason, I guess I'm not liberal then since that's your definition. People seem to think that progressive and liberal are the same so I haven't had a problem being labeled liberal. But the way I see it progressive means you look at the factors involved in cause and effect, then adopt a world view that takes into account the consequences of our actions. Being progressive means you are aware and contemplate reality. In your eyes liberal means you just vote for whoever will give you the most. I'm clearly not a liberal as I have no inclination in handing out freebies and welfare to people who are simply lazy.

A a progressive I see both conservatives and liberals alike happy to see the govt cut them breaks and hand out favors.

A a progressive I see both conservatives and liberals alike happy to see the govt cut them breaks and hand out favors.

This is not true on an individual level, however, if you lump businesses into the conservative group then I guess it does.

In my personal opinion, the difference between liberal and conservative is a misinterpretation of a humans accountability for himself. It stems from the subjective nature of the value of the human experience. We look at the work we do, the pay we get for that work, and the value we perceive it having. Conservatives believe they work hard for that money and it should be theirs to command. Liberals feel that money is easy come easy go. Each assumes the opposition sees it like they do. So, in a conservatives eyes, liberals are crazy, and in a liberals eyes, conservatives are greedy. Neither is really the case. Actors know they are overpaid. They pretend on film. Those getting a government handout know they are overpaid. They did nothing to earn it. How do they generally lean? Steel workers sweat all day for a middleclass wage. They feel they earn their money. Oil men in TX risk large chunks of their worth trying to find black gold. Many go bankrupt doing so, while others strike it rich. They feel they earned that bounty. How do they usually lean?

Employees generally get paid on how hard you are to replace, not how hard you work. I disagree about the individual vs business level aspect. As individuals we generally don't think about govt welfare that has nothing to do with economic status. The govt gives tax money to pensions, mortgages, and health insurance on the behalf of the individual. This is creating a faux capitalism dependent on govt welfare. When the middle class and up get HI welfare they are driving up heathcare costs. When the healthcare profession gets tight controls implemented by law it enriches the professionals with the licenses,

Our whole society and economy is tightly coupled with laws that frequently drive costs up creating a bigger separation between the haves and have nots. The trade deficit creates a deficit economy and moves jobs overseas. We are happy to let the economy deplete because of the immediate rewards at the expense of future society.

Until we as the people adopt a progressive attitude about understanding all aspects of the economy, and the unintended consequences of policy that on the surface appears beneficial we will never be able to solve our problems. The idea that "tax the rich give to the poor" is what's fundamentally wrong is nothing more than a shallow minded viewpoint.

Just suppose the above is true, so what! The real question is are you more interested in laying blame or finding a solution?

Not to associate my position with the OP, but your premise is a gun ban is the solution to a statistically isolated event. I would argue otherwise and further state that crazy will find a way to extract their pain on society. Furthermore the premise that "if it saves one life or prevents one massacre" is false in my mind because we do not report or account for all the lives saved or violence prevented by lawful gun owners defending their life and liberty from criminals or sick individuals who seek to do harm. Eliminating or severely restricting an enumerated right is unconscionable and does far more harm to society than these isolated events.

I've posted this elsewhere but figure it's applicable with the direction of this thread:

As many of you agree marriage is an individual right and women's health is an individual right, and that these are serious civil rights issues where tyranny of the majority and the collective is/are stampeding on the liberties of individuals, many of you who hold these positions dear to your heart also see fit to revoke or severely restrict an enumerated individual right as an emotional reaction to tragedy. I simply do not see the consistency in taking that position and yes this highlights how both sides of the aisle are intellectually inconsistent in regards to issues of liberty.

Not to associate my position with the OP, but your premise is a gun ban is the solution to a statistically isolated event. I would argue otherwise and further state that crazy will find a way to extract their pain on society. Furthermore the premise that "if it saves one life or prevents one massacre" is false in my mind because we do not report or account for all the lives saved or violence prevented by lawful gun owners defending their life and liberty from criminals or sick individuals who seek to do harm. Eliminating or severely restricting an enumerated right is unconscionable and does far more harm to society than these isolated events.

I've posted this elsewhere but figure it's applicable with the direction of this thread:

As many of you agree marriage is an individual right and women's health is an individual right, and that these are serious civil rights issues where tyranny of the majority and the collective is/are stampeding on the liberties of individuals, many of you who hold these positions dear to your heart also see fit to revoke or severely restrict an enumerated individual right as an emotional reaction to tragedy. I simply do not see the consistency in taking that position and yes this highlights how both sides of the aisle are intellectually inconsistent in regards to issues of liberty.

Where did Darren say anything about banning guns? He asked if its more important to lay blame than to find a solution. Why do you feel that "find a solution" means ban guns?

Secondly, with the discussion of marital and abortion rights, it certainly goes both ways. Those that want guns galore generally feel that gays should not marry and that abortions should be illegal. Obviously this is a gross over-simplification of what someone might believe for argument's sake. Civil liberties are readily cherry picked by both sides of the aisle, and then held up as proof of failure to protect civil liberties by the other side. What a delightful sequence! Round and round we go.

The idea that "tax the rich give to the poor" is what's fundamentally wrong is nothing more than a shallow minded viewpoint.

Its more of an example of what is wrong, and easily correctable. The problem in our society is the sense of entitlement. We sell out America by propping up the lazy with entitlements. We sell out America by allowing businesses to destroy the economy with outsourcing.

IMO, outsourcing is a business deal that in some cases benefit us because we do not have nor want some manufacturing facilities here. So its kind of grey and needs to be ironed out rather than an all out removal.

Paying people money they did not earn by taking it from hard workers is fundamentally flawed. It goes directly against the basic foundation of human civilization. I dont think there is anyone who doesnt understand that. Therefore it seems like an easy starting point to reform even though it may not give the same yield as defunding the military or some other drastic measure.

It's hard to argue with what you posted because your definition of entitlements is unclear. I do not like handing out welfare to people who don't want to work, but I don't consider welfare an entitlement. However, you may consider entitlement anything that the law gives you the right to get, which is a legitimate interpretation. I prefer to call it welfare.

I question how it's easily accomplishable. Who defines what entitlements are the ones to cut? I've even heard Republicans argue that restricting the types of foods available under food stamps is wrong. Where's the analysis that breaks down all the welfare and entitlements that could be cut? Doesn't sound easy to get from A to B when nobody has any clear vision of what that means.

Where did Darren say anything about banning guns? He asked if its more important to lay blame than to find a solution. Why do you feel that "find a solution" means ban guns?

What is the primary push in the legislative bodies right now surrounding this issue? A ban of defensive semi-automatic rifles seems to be the focus from my perspective. That and in my state background checks for ammunition along with further restrictions on standard capacity magazines.

If you want to discuss other solutions please lay them out there for me. But the national debate or at least what is being reported still focuses on the ban and/or restriction to certain arms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan

Secondly, with the discussion of marital and abortion rights, it certainly goes both ways. Those that want guns galore generally feel that gays should not marry and that abortions should be illegal. Obviously this is a gross over-simplification of what someone might believe for argument's sake. Civil liberties are readily cherry picked by both sides of the aisle, and then held up as proof of failure to protect civil liberties by the other side. What a delightful sequence! Round and round we go.

I believe I made it clear that both parties are hypocritical or as I said intellectually inconsistent with regards to individual liberty, which is why I would never register or associate myself with the party platforms of the Republicans or Democrats.

If you want to discuss other solutions please lay them out there for me. But the national debate or at least what is being reported still focuses on the ban and/or restriction to certain arms.

- A director for the ATF and a reasonable staffing so that laws can be enforced.
- Background checks for gun shows and private sales.
- A national database for gun registrations.
- Clear rules for determining if someone is competent to own a gun.

All these things are opposed by those loyal to gun lobbies. The idea of arming teachers to defend kids from a whacked out FPS fantasizing kook with an AR is ludicrous. The NRA's position to is give that grandma teaching kindergarden a pistol so she'll be shot first.

- A director for the ATF and a reasonable staffing so that laws can be enforced.
- Background checks for gun shows and private sales.
- A national database for gun registrations.
- Clear rules for determining if someone is competent to own a gun.

The President can appoint a new director at anytime, his party controls the confirmation in the Senate. This is a garbage excuse and you know it.

ATF is funded and ultimately state and local LEO do most of the enforcement of laws. I'd rather have that money go local than to the feds who use it for actions like fast and furious.

I live in California, all sales, even those at gun shows or between private parties must be handled by a FFL who performs the background check/DROS and holds the firearm for 10-days.

Gun registration is historically the first step to confiscation. I would oppose this measure and there is no room for flexibility on this, imo.

There are clear rules no felons, no restraining orders, no mental health holds, ect... However, this is where I would agree that a linked national background check would be helpful. I was under the impression these systems were linked with the real id act and patriot act that we spent billions on over the last decade. I'm shocked those billions have not linked law enforcement databases.

The NRA is not the only gun-owners lobby out there... But focus on that bogey it's going to really solve the problem...

The idea of arming teachers to defend kids from a whacked out FPS fantasizing kook with an AR is ludicrous.

The school I went to for HS and most of the schools built after 1990 in my community are designed so that there is one entry and exit point during school hours. At my school this was right next to the on duty Police Officer's on campus office. I'm sure the Police Officer was there mainly as a drug deterrent but all the same I'm not opposed to having uniformed police or sheriffs on site.

I also had several ex-marine HS coaches and teachers who I would not be concerned if they were armed. I do not think it is about arming grandma school marm but allowing those with training and interest to take a role in campus security. Perhaps being a shepherd as opposed to sheep.

Not to associate my position with the OP, but your premise is a gun ban is the solution to a statistically isolated event. I would argue otherwise and further state that crazy will find a way to extract their pain on society. Furthermore the premise that "if it saves one life or prevents one massacre" is false in my mind because we do not report or account for all the lives saved or violence prevented by lawful gun owners defending their life and liberty from criminals or sick individuals who seek to do harm. Eliminating or severely restricting an enumerated right is unconscionable and does far more harm to society than these isolated events....

Where was the NRA when the Patriot Act was passed by Bush(and recently signed back into law by Obama)? Hardly even a peep from all of the "defenders of the Constitution". If your true motive is about protecting Constitutional Rights, then you should be fighting for them all. To paraphrase a talk show host, it makes no sense to only worry about the 2nd Amendment when the other rights (which are what should be protected by the 2nd Amendment), have already been taken. You are wanting the "well-armed militia" that has nothing left to protect.

If your true motive is about protecting Constitutional Rights, then you should be fighting for them all.

How about you debate me and not the NRA? There are hundreds of organizations that solely focus on singular issues and your argument that they should be defending all civil rights is logically fallacious.

I'm just as angered about the patriot act and FISA renewal violating our 4th amendment, and I've posted as such in other threads. I've also recognized other individual civil rights that the collective or electoral majority violate daily and indicated my disdain for those actions. I am consistent in my defense on individual liberty, are you? From my perspective you value some liberties above others and are not as understanding of some groups who wish to maintain their rights as you are others.

It's hard to argue with what you posted because your definition of entitlements is unclear. I do not like handing out welfare to people who don't want to work, but I don't consider welfare an entitlement. However, you may consider entitlement anything that the law gives you the right to get, which is a legitimate interpretation. I prefer to call it welfare.

I consider entitlements to be money stolen from the population and redistributed to those who do not pay into said program, welfare being the biggest violator, but to a lesser extent Obamacare. Neither one of us want to give money to lazy. I referred to it as being "easy" because both sides appear to agree on this point. As you pointed out, many of the left do not want to give money to the lazy, but they cannot get behind this kind of reform as many of their side's voters benefit from it \ depend on it. If Obama would have shut down the most egregious welfare abusers (lazy) and the baby-farm exploiters prior to the election, would he have won? Addressing this issue should be simple with bipartisan common sense, but its political suicide. Therefore we cannot move on something we all agree on.

If we cant work together to move on something we all agree on, how can we be expected to have reasonable movement on things we do not?

So if any candidate said he was going to shut down welfare abusers and baby farmers would he win? Which BTW I would like to hear said as well. But I never heard a word out of Romney to that regard. You want to make sure that conservatives don't win any elections ever? Just keep the high inflation rate of healthcare and put more and more people out of the ability to get healthcare. It's an issue that the people want addressed.

I don't consider making healthcare accessible as welfare to those who don't want to work. HC is not affordable by plenty of people who want to work. This is where the arguments start to break down. First you make the claim that you don't want to give lazy people other people's money. But as soon as the details flesh out it turns out that the issue isn't lazy people who don't want to work. It's people who cannot afford important essentials that will be in an expanding voter block if the issues aren't addressed. Same with the jobs situation. People who want to work but are increasingly put out of work due to favoring foreign labor over a strong sustainable economy.

What is the primary push in the legislative bodies right now surrounding this issue? A ban of defensive semi-automatic rifles seems to be the focus from my perspective. That and in my state background checks for ammunition along with further restrictions on standard capacity magazines.

I agree, that is the push. But Darren doesn't even live in the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by norcalrider

If you want to discuss other solutions please lay them out there for me. But the national debate or at least what is being reported still focuses on the ban and/or restriction to certain arms.

Unfortunately that is where the debate is centered. Fortunately the debate and the actions are pretty far apart right now. O has threatened re-enacting the Ban, but so far has focused more on securing firearms, proper background checks and limiting magazine capacities. Those seem like they might have some potential. We both know a ban will not fix the problem, nor will any one change in law. Its about making a concerted effort that makes sense (this might be tough for the politicians).

Quote:

Originally Posted by norcalrider

I believe I made it clear that both parties are hypocritical or as I said intellectually inconsistent with regards to individual liberty, which is why I would never register or associate myself with the party platforms of the Republicans or Democrats.

Yep, I was agreeing with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by norcalrider

I live in California, all sales, even those at gun shows or between private parties must be handled by a FFL who performs the background check/DROS and holds the firearm for 10-days.

We Californians are in the minority on that one. 33 states do not regulate gun show or private sales.

I'm saying that conservative citizens call for it expecting agreement from across the isle. Liberals shun it because of their constituency. They redirect to some other area to cut that is very grey like military spending (military IS the governments job, while welfare and planning my retirement is not). If we cant agree to act on the things we know to be wrong universally, how are we to work together on things that are more subjective?

Military spending isn't gray, it's excessive. The Constitution doesn't enumerate the Feds right to go into debt or tax to rebuild other nations. It's the argument that we need to do this to protect the nation that's gray. Super gray. Using tax revenue to fund people's pensions, mortgages, and heath insurance is gray. The Constitution allows the fed to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Pretty gray huh?

See there is nothing definitive about your side of the argument. Quite the opposite of universally wrong. One could just as easily argue that giving tax revenue to a market sector, driving up costs, and putting healthcare out of reach of a segment of society is universally wrong. One could argue that allowing people to buy property (i.e. land that they did not create) and not returning it back to the general population when they die is universally wrong. You can argue that anything is universally wrong. But you'll find that there is nothing universal about all of these positions. And when you drive a hard line conservative message and implement policy that creates more have-nots the result could be increased liberalism and govt giveaways. Which makes them more universally right, since the definition of universal is pretty much... everyone agrees. And when it's one person, one vote things that are gray aren't Constitutionally protected.

Unfortunately that is where the debate is centered. Fortunately the debate and the actions are pretty far apart right now. O has threatened re-enacting the Ban, but so far has focused more on securing firearms, proper background checks and limiting magazine capacities. Those seem like they might have some potential. We both know a ban will not fix the problem, nor will any one change in law. Its about making a concerted effort that makes sense (this might be tough for the politicians).

The measures on the table both legislatively and executive action do not address mental health or access to mental health services. Nor does it address violent crime or violent criminals either through intervention, rehabilitation (while in prison), or prevention. However, it does make things harder on law-abiding citizens. So our politicians are proposing to infringe upon enumerated individual rights to effectuate statistically no change in the name of political expediency and seemingly many are OK or in favor of this illusion?

That's something I cannot and will not stand for... Be it TSA procedures, warrantless wiretaps, or gun control.

Do something that addresses the issue at hand, and increase access to mental health services to prevent these random acts of spree killing or if you honestly want to address violence then stem it off where it takes place and address the issues that perpetuate most of this violence in urban America

How about you debate me and not the NRA? There are hundreds of organizations that solely focus on singular issues and your argument that they should be defending all civil rights is logically fallacious.

I'm just as angered about the patriot act and FISA renewal violating our 4th amendment, and I've posted as such in other threads. I've also recognized other individual civil rights that the collective or electoral majority violate daily and indicated my disdain for those actions. I am consistent in my defense on individual liberty, are you? From my perspective you value some liberties above others and are not as understanding of some groups who wish to maintain their rights as you are others.

Why? Isn't the crux of the argument that "our rights are under assault"? Notice how I made "rights" plural; and that wasn't by accident. They (the NRA) are the ones that launched the crusade to protect our rights, not me, not you. The whole argument is preserving rights. The Patriot Act has done more negatively to our collective rights that an outright ban on all guns could ever do.

Why? Isn't the crux of the argument that "our rights are under assault"? Notice how I made "rights" plural; and that wasn't by accident. They (the NRA) are the ones that launched the crusade to protect our rights, not me, not you. The whole argument is preserving rights. The Patriot Act has done more negatively to our collective rights that an outright ban on all guns could ever do.

Our rights are under assault be it the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or others given the vogue irrational political debate of the day. Our politicians on both sides have inconsistently violated(developed?) their platforms to take an expedient position to get quoted that day.

However, the NRA is one of several 2nd amendment focused associations. Just as the Sierra Club doesn't advocate on the 4th amendment, why would you expect the NRA? It just isn't in their mission statement. There is a number of associations for any given issue. Most keep their focus narrow to help keep their fundraising focused. Big tents only work in political parties and as I believe we have all agreed that leads to intellectual inconsistencies.

First some observations then a practical suggested "solution". I say solution but i don't know if such a thing exists, but seeing as everyone else seems content to just play the blame game at least it is proactive.

The common arms when the founding fathers penned the right to bear arms were single shot muskets and pistols.
People generally seem to accept that some weapons are not appropriate for the general public to own, ie anthrax, rpg gunships etc,
People have no problem out lawing dangerous dogs.
Hang guns are most fit for personal protection rather than multi person assult.

Suggested solution:
No restriction on the type or number of weapons a citizen can own but......
Citizens may only store two handguns with round capacity less than 10 at there property or on there person.
All other weapons must be stored and used at a registered facility ie gun club.

Mandatory jail time for possessing UN licenced weapons or exceeding the 2 gun max law

Do you believe that tax dollars should fund the military at all? I assume you do. So at its foundation we agree. They gray area is "how much is too much?" Some say its excessive and others say its not. Both sides make compelling arguments, and its certainly up for debate.

Do you believe tax dollars should fund free money for the lazy? No you dont, and neither do I. We agree this is wrong at the foundation. From there, there is no debate on whether its too much, or not enough.

The common arms when the founding fathers penned the right to bear arms were single shot muskets and pistols.
People generally seem to accept that some weapons are not appropriate for the general public to own, ie anthrax, rpg gunships etc,
People have no problem out lawing dangerous dogs.
Hang guns are most fit for personal protection rather than multi person assult.

Suggested solution:
No restriction on the type or number of weapons a citizen can own but......
Citizens may only store two handguns with round capacity less than 10 at there property or on there person.
All other weapons must be stored and used at a registered facility ie gun club.

Mandatory jail time for possessing UN licenced weapons or exceeding the 2 gun max law

I do not agree with the limitation of the 2nd amendment to muskets and would disagree with that approach in general not to mention while limiting destructive devices like RPGs and others the SCOTUS has not limited the 2nd to just muskets and single shot pistols. In fact, the SCOTUS considers the 2nd to guns "in common use at the time," seeing as how AR15 variants are the best selling guns in America I would believe that triggers the common use interpretation.

I do have a problem with dog bans but there is a fundamental difference as a dog can act on it's own will, a gun cannot.

Furthermore, if the goal is to address gun violence and you want to ban or limit guns why is the assault rifle in consideration? Those 2 allowable handguns in your scenario are far more likely to be used in violent crime. But it is my position that violent crime can and should be addressed through education, intervention, and counselling.

And on the ranch, one wouldn't be allowed to use a semi-auto ranch rifle to keep coyotes away from the chicken coops?

Not to mention, I am far more confident with a rifle or shotgun than I am a handgun and would prefer a defensive semi-automatic carbine or shotgun over a handgun anyday of the week. Not to mention I do most of my shooting on BLM or private ag land so the gun club idea is fairly restrictive and in my opinion would violate the intent of the 2nd amendment.

The problem is defining lazy, because this qualifier seems to present in most arguments against welfare. Is someone who is out of work, can't find a job, and with children to feed... lazy? If so then no food stamps, but if not then what? Plenty of debate IMO. If your fundamental belief is that the gov should never help anyone out with tax money because it's taking from someone else, then you will be out of the debate.

Didn't unemployment use to make people present so many applications per month in order to get their money? I know a few people on UE and know for a fact they are not and have not been out looking for a job. I have ZERO problem with UE. It is a needed system as long as it isn't abused.

Didn't unemployment use to make people present so many applications per month in order to get their money? I know a few people on UE and know for a fact they are not and have not been out looking for a job. I have ZERO problem with UE. It is a needed system as long as it isn't abused.

I've got to say that I've changed my opinion on gun control as a result of the discussions on this board, especially as it relates to "assault weapons." Not sure I see any discernible logic in banning some guns but not others. It's window dressing, I'll now concede. I'll also concede that while gun violence is disproportionate in the USA, that the gun violence itself is much more correlated to poverty than weapon style and to illegal vs legal gun ownership. Banning or restricting legal ownership isn't going to fix poverty or illegal ownership.

Hat's off -- many of you, Mik especially, have been persuasive on that point.

And in fact if I were emperor of the universe, I'd be willing to leave everything as it is EXCEPT I'd like to see guns registered. I do not find "it's the first step toward confiscation" persuasive. Rather, if we are ever going to get a handle on how legally produced guns are getting into the hands of criminals, we need to be able to trace title to the weapons. is that foolproof? Of course not. But to ignore any sort of tracking as a means to stop the market for illegal weapons is akin to "just say no" to illegal gun use. We know how "just say no to drugs" has worked.

I predict gun violence and massacre type incidents will continue and escalate in the US until there is a major shift in the general populations perception of there rights in regard to gun control. Sad

I think massacres are more a function of the bizarro isolationist media dependent society we live in. In any event they are troubling but exceedingly rare. I don't think there's anything we can do to legislate off the grid abhorent behavior out of existence. It's more social than legal. Same for terrorism.... which these massacres really are... just terror for the sake of fame (as opposed to terror for the sake of some loony political agenda).

The problem is defining lazy, because this qualifier seems to present in most arguments against welfare. Is someone who is out of work, can't find a job, and with children to feed... lazy? If so then no food stamps, but if not then what? Plenty of debate IMO. If your fundamental belief is that the gov should never help anyone out with tax money because it's taking from someone else, then you will be out of the debate.

I use lazy generically. IMO it isnt laziness thats the problem, its a math problem. The system "assists" so well that assistance is a "better life" than working. Its not that they are lazy, its that working isnt a better income stream. We have moved from a society of ethics to a society of practicality.

IMO, charity is where this help needs to come from, not the fed govt. The fed cannot look at it granularly and keep assistance going to those who need it and away from those looking for the free ride. They have the ability to look at this at an individual level and refuse service to those who are looking for a free ride in their community.

However, ending the free ride will not be popular for those benefitting from it. While its the right thing to do for both parties and America as a whole, its political suicide. it will only happen when one party has such a firm grip on the country that they dont need the "lazy vote".

it will only happen when one party has such a firm grip on the country that they dont need the "lazy vote".

And that isn't going to happen under our economic model. That's been my point all along. Out economic model is turning the middle class into the poor and enriching the wealthy. The result is the party that has the firmest grip will be the party representing the have-nots.

Ever wonder how the Fed (monetary fed not federal govt) can expand the money supply? How does it do this without giving money to somebody. If it's a loan and has to be paid back that cannot ultimately be an expansion. The Fed can't get anything in return for money because what does it need in exchange? Yes I know the Fed makes a profit on loans and pays some or most of that to the govt. But who gets the money in an expansion? If it buys troubled mortgages then investors and banks get the money. Free money. Must be nice.

Mlk, Don't we still live in the world's most violent country (speaking of modernized nations)???

Terms aside, No we do not live in the most violent society. Violence is a combination of many acts, we do have a high murder rate (when compared to affluent countries that are less diverse than ours) but generally a low violent crime rate per capita.

A lot of these concerns and fears are based on a correlation that guns equal violence but we all know from countless other examples that correlation is not causation.

A little tongue in cheek but this shows that correlation is not causation:

There were times in my lifetime where I feel it wasn't near as even and polarized as it is now. Certainly you have seen it in yours to an even greater extent. I'm just bummed that we as a whole cannot make changes to things we know and agree are fundamentally wrong due to risk of political foothold. There has to be a certain amount of fairness involved in any of these decisions. its not fair to take from you or I to support a guy who doesn't think the extra $100 a month a job provides over staying home is worth it. I think SS needs to go away as well, but it isn't really fair to your age group not to pay out, and while I'm willing to let loose of mine now, I'm no spring chicken and in 10-15 years or so I will be in the same boat as you.

I think it is hard for you and I do determine how much military spending is "enough". Whats the minimum number that keeps us safe? How important are state of the art aircraft? How many = 100% air superiority for years to come? How do you quantify it? I don't know. Do you back it off all the way until you are proven vulnerable then bump it up?

I think its easy to determine if taking money out of your check and mine and giving it to someone else who finds the income to effort ratio much better at home should be allowed.

Unfortunately focusing on cutting out the guy who doesn't want to work for the extra hundred strikes me as a red herring. None of those people have any real assets. They have no wealth and they aren't hanging on to anything. You take the money from you and me and give it to them. Then where does it go? The data says that it's going to the wealthy in increasing amounts. And the data says the middle class are getting poorer.

So who has to suffer to fix this problem? IMO it has to be all of us. We are going to have to look at the numbers that indicate a problem with the economy. We have to plug the leak and make sure the net flow of money in and out of our economy is zero. When the economy gets larger, if there is an expansion of the money supply by the fed then it needs to pay down the debt. How else can the supply expand? Giving it to troubled segments of the economy is nothing more than welfare for the private sector.

It seems like if the Fed can print money and expand the economy, then the rest of the world is going to want a cut. Otherwise why should they value the American dollar if we can just print it and they get nothing. It's a complex problem and making healthcare too expensive for over half the population is a recipe for a huge liberal voting block.

It's funny a gun rights debate has turned into a welfare conversation.Simple fix for everything.We do it and sell it here.We grow our own food,make our own goods and make our own arms.Send all the illegals packing or make them english speaking citizens.Their would be plenty of jobs for everyone if we were a self reliant nation.Instead of welfare and food stamps,you would have government work programs.People in these programs would have to do something productive for their pay.Examples being road repair,trash pickup along the highways and streets,babysitting to help out with the children of these workers by the most qualified of the workers.The value of the dollar would equal out to a better living than it is now after a short adjustment period from the China made junk economy were in now.We would not have to fear other countries because we would be a stronger more prideful nation.

Jeremy, you can sell to other countries. You just can't buy from countries unless the burden our govt puts on domestic companies is also placed on imports. If an import has no minimum wage, then you tariff the product to equalize the burden. Same with workman's comp, SS, Medicare, HI, pensions, safety, legal, environmental protections, etc...

John, globalism is good for everyone. The US withdrawing from international trade would be devastating to much of the world and hurt more people than you can imagine. Why would you want that?

"globalism is good for everyone" is a blanket claim with no specifics. There is nothing in my previous post that claims we shouldn't have globalism. What I said is based on the premise that if domestic manufacturers are burdened with costs imposed by law that foreign manufacturers don't have, then the govt is unfairly giving foreign manufacturers an unfair advantage. Your post is a knee jerk reaction to my post that offers no insight into this problem and how it should be dealt with.

And it isn't just by law. If we as a society think that pensions are a necessity then why would we patronize a country that doesn't have such values when we know that patronage is destruction to our way of life. Why would we divert govt tax revenue into pension accounts if a pension should be solely the responsibility of the worker? And why would we use taxes to give govt employees pensions?

I am suggesting that we the public see the trade deficit as a bellwether of our economic problems. Elementary school math should be sufficient to understand this point. Being one who is happy to learn, I look forward to someone giving me a credible explanation as to how our economy can lose over a 1/2 trillion a year with no detrimental effect. The same thing wrt quantitative expansion. I'd love to know who the Fed can expand the money supply without ultimately giving money to somebody. The Fed can't sell the money. It's not like it's buying diamonds and gold and stashing them in a vault.

I find it amazing that simple math principles are ignored when we question what is going on with the economy. It's like if the media doesn't address it, then it can't be a valid point. It's as if we are not capable of questioning things based on the fundamental principles of simple addition and subtraction. I've been throwing out this same basic rant for a long time and the agreement is underwhelming. Which leads me to believe that the solution to a fiscally conservative country is still not going to happen anytime soon.

John, I got to believe that the biggest problem of the trade deficit, along with a falling dollar is the importing of foreign oil, what are you going to be complaining about in ten years when we are an energy efficient country, and do not have to import oil because of the shale oil reserves?

Jo, you are right I believe about half the deficit is oil imports. Sounds like you have a problem with my calling the trade deficit a serious issue. Or am I mistaken in thinking your post is condescending?

John, condescending? no, just looking at the big picture, are guns the biggest problem in our country right now or are we(the media) just talking about it because of the Connecticut shootings. What about the banks? Are they still too big to fail? and will the American people(middle class) have to bail them out again?
Over one million people die each year because of heart disease and cancer in the USA and people in US are worried about getting shot with an AR?
The economy is still Not on track, so are we just going to accept a slow growing economy and just worry about the gun situation?
Jobs are available, they are technical jobs that most American students are not interested in doing. So, do we import workers and talent and reward those people or do we revamp our educational system? Seems like our country is very reactive to its problems. We can solve any problems we face, if we work on production in America we could stay the largest economy in the world and the trade deficit would be solved by itself with US making the highest quality products in the world, but America will not even worry about that situation until we become #2 and China is #1 and then all of the sudden it will be a "problem"